 |
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
The TV Commentator Awards
Posted: Wednesday January 19, 2000 12:36 PM
Got a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click here. Presenting the Second Annual (at least I think it's the second one ... didn't I do one a few years ago?) Dr. Z TV Commentator Awards. First, a word of explanation. What am I looking for? Go back to the Rose Bowl on ABC, Dan Fouts and Keith Jackson doing the commentary. First half is tight, Ron Dayne nullified. Then on the first series of the third quarter he starts motoring. Stanford was overplaying its line and taking away Dayne's strongside runs, Fouts tells us. Wisconsin adjusted at halftime and now they're running him weak. Let's see how Stanford handles it. No big deal to Dan. Anyone should be able to spot this. But that's precisely what the NFL announcers don't pick up. They're too busy hyping this or that or whatever, too busy with what the production people like to call the "storyline." Not enough clarity of thought, almost zero analysis. Oh, the guys on my Five Star or Four Star lists could catch a wrinkle like this on a good day, and occasionally they do. But the rest of them? Uh-uh. "The problem," one network guy told me, "is that it's not what they're called on to do. They're always reminded that they're in the entertainment business. So there's a lot of hype and very little real analysis. The good guys say the hell with that and break away and do their own thing, and those are the ones you like. The others just ride with it."
Too many of those cutesy little features that run over the action on the field, too many shots of the quarterback's head, the shot being held just long enough to nullify the start of the play, thereby depriving us of the knowledge of the formations and alignments. Too many announcers assuming they're doing a job by coming up with enough snappy lines to wind up in one of those national TV columns the next day. Too many six-legged turkeys on Thanksgiving Day. Too much hype, and nifty little gimmicks -- Pick a play. What would you call, Paul? How about you, Joe? Too many promos. Aaaagh! Am I alone here? I don't think so. The fans I talk to in my neighborhood are even tougher on these people than I am. I try to stick up for the guys I knew as players, when they were witty and articulate, but who all of a sudden turn into bumbling yes-men when they're in the booth. Sad. What happens to them? Sometimes, in conversation, it amazes me how much they know, the depth of it. I wonder why we don't hear this on the air. I'm embarrassed to ask because I know the answer. Enough griping. Here are my ratings, from Five Stars down to One, with the analyst listed first, followed by the play-by-play man: FIVE STARS Brian Baldinger and Curt Menefee, Fox. You say you've never heard of them? It's understandable, because they do last-string games. But, boy, do they work at it. Baldy, an old guard for the Super Bowl Eagles, is simply terrific at breaking down a play before he's seen the replay, which, I believe is the true test. I mentioned to his old Philly teammate, Ron Jaworski, who's on ESPN these days, that I really liked Brian's stuff. "It's no accident," Jaws told me. "He's in here watching films with me every week." It shows. Ron Pitts and Ray Bentley, Fox. Ron was one of my Five Star choices last time I did this thing and he hasn't slipped, probably because Fox refuses to recognize his talent and keeps him on the low-rated action, thereby squashing the ego elevator that hurts so many of them. Ron, a former DB, is excellent at describing the action downfield. I heard him on a St. Louis game earlier in the season. When Tony Horne was terrorizing people with his kickoff returns, Pitts was identifying people in the wedge and pointing out good blocks, as well as the scheme. You ever hear anyone else do this? Note to Mr. Bentley: Please try to do a better job at spotting the ball, O.K.? Four yards are not "a couple." Matt Millen and Dick Stockton, Fox. Matt was a tackle in college and a linebacker in the NFL, so he's equally versed in line play and coverage schemes. What I like best is that he'll tell you who actually created a play, rather than the guy who inherits the tackle or sack. Plus, and this is a big one, he shows his passion for the game. Again, many of them seem to have lost it in their desire to hype and get on with their storyline or their own personal ego trip. It's what I always hated about the old Howard Cosell Monday Night Football crew. The game was merely a personal vehicle for them; there was no respect for it. FOUR STARS Bill Maas and Sam Rosen, Fox. Maas, an ex-nose tackle, is best with the linemen. Good feel for the game. An iconoclast who doesn't mind taking a rip at a superstar (what a relief). Plus, he has an instant and comprehensive knowledge of the rules, which, amazingly, few of the analysts have. Sam would make me happier if he stopped calling an end-around a "double-reverse." A double-reverse, which is rare, is when they start one way, reverse it the other, then go back the original way again. Got it, Sam? THREE STARS Sam Wyche and Kevin Harlan, CBS. Wyche, a former QB, is the best analyst at instant recognition of zone or man coverages and explaining why they succeeded or failed. Harlan is weak at identifying tacklers, but he has a pretty good feel for calling the blocks correctly. Could be his spotter, but an announcer should be able to pick up some of this stuff on his own. Sam works hard, but sometimes he gets a little goody-goody for my tastes, i.e, when he described Giants coach Jim Fassel's relationship with his quarterback, Kerry Collins, as "part of the bonding process." Yuk! Mark May and Ian Eagle, CBS. Mark is a big guy with a squeaky voice that produces some titters, but he's a hard worker who's good at identifying coverages, no mean feat for an ex-offensive lineman. He hypes the superstars a little too much for me, and Eagle is an absolute disaster at identifying the correct yard line. Most distressing of all, they've got a director who's the worst in the game at holding the QB headshot too long and screwing up the play for you. I complained about this to the network people; they took it calmly. Phil Simms and Greg Gumbel, CBS. I don't feel entirely comfortable with this team. Denver at Detroit, Saturday, Dec. 25: Simms mentions that someone was "drug down." "He was what?" Gumbel says, and proceeds to go into a big ha-ha about this rather common colloquialism until Simms shuts him up with, "It's nice to be corrected on national TV." At one time I felt Simms was on his way to being one of the best. I feel that he's listening to the production people too much. His enthusiasm for the game is undeniable, and when he's on a roll he's lucid and informative, but he occasionally gets caught up in the old storyline thing and misses some of the action. And as the network's No. 1 crew, sometimes the unit gets too impressed with its own importance. San Francisco vs. Pittsburgh: Armen Keteyian, their sideline guy and investigative reporter, is presenting this whole spiel about Steve Young not coming back, which has, by now, been written to death. A play goes by. Then another, a completed pass resulting in a first down. Not a word about the action in progress. Hey, fellas, you ain't bigger than the game. Gumbel is also very weak at identifying significant plays unless the guy involved is a well-known name. Dan Dierdorf and Verne Lundquist, CBS. When Dan's enthused about a game, he's pretty solid, although he's still given to those thundering pronouncements: "I continue to be impressed with the evolution and maturation of Ray Lucas ." Bong! Is that a cathedral bell I hear? He is, however, the only person I've ever heard present a logical reason why a team doesn't refuse the enemy's deliberate delay-of-game penalty to give its punter more room, when he's kicking toward the goal line. "Because then you won't be hurt by a running-into-the-punter penalty," Dan said. Now why didn't I think of that? Lundquist is an old-timer who once, when I complimented him on his accuracy in spotting the ball, told me that was one thing in which he always took pride. I rate him No. 2 in that department right now, ABC's Al Michaels being No. 1, ESPN's Mike Patrick No. 3. Verne is also good at identifying the correct tackler on a play. TWO STARS Boomer Esiason and Al Michaels, ABC. As I said above, Michaels is the best at correctly spotting the ball, and for this I am thankful (and so are my charts). Boomer was exciting last year when he was the new kid on the block who simply didn't give a damn. Now he's been network-ized. A house man. Worst of all, both these guys have a short attention span, and when a game no longer holds their interest they'll get into the topics of the day. Case in point: Green Bay-San Francisco. It's a 7-3 game and the Packers are in a two-minute offense at the end of the half, and what are we hearing? Bowl matchups. Peggy Fleming, the ice skater. I started yelling and didn't stop until poor Linda put a towel over my head. Givv ussh vva dammgamme, mfff! It's maddening. The production is still good, visually, because of the camera work, etc. But -- hey, fellas, the game comes first, you come second. Brent Jones and Gus Johnson, CBS. Brent is a newcomer and a good guy, so give him a chance, I say. He'll describe the passing game pretty well, especially when it concerns the tight end (it figures, right?), but at times his enthusiasm reaches near-hysteria. And that's when the blown plays come in. Baltimore at Jacksonville: "They ought to roll Stoney Case out more." The only problem was that Tony Banks was quarterbacking. Jacksonville at Baltimore: No mention of the fact that Peter Boulware has left the game with a bad shoulder after the first series. And so on. But, as I said, give 'em a chance. They're young. John Madden and Pat Summerall, Fox. The reasons why I thought Madden was the best, at one time, were: 1) he was funny, 2) his stuff was always fresh, never resorting to clichés, and 3) he was a terrific watcher. He'd spot things that eluded me, he'd tell us things. Once I asked him how he watched a game, what did he give his first look to. "I watch it from the inside out," he said. "The interior three of guard-center-guard, then I branch outward." I tried it. It wasn't easy. Now? Well, he still has the power to amuse us on occasion, but a lot of the stuff has worn thin. I mean, those Thanksgiving turkeys? My wife said she counted 119 mentions this year. I told her she was bluffing. She didn't really count them, did she? DID SHE? "Well, it seemed like it," she said. What's scarier is that things on the field simply elude John and Pat. I started keeping a list of how many times they said, "What happened?" or similar. I gave up at 20. A case in point: New Orleans-Dallas, the game turning on a fumble by Emmitt Smith, forced by little-known tackle Robert Newkirk and resulting in a big runback. Zero from the booth. I mean, not a clue. How to bail out? Go with shtick, so the next thing we heard was a description of "turduckens," for a while, a combination of turkey, duck and chicken. Huh? ONE STAR Tim Green and Kenny Albert, Fox. Uh-uh. Harder work needed here. Wrong coverages. Wrong identifications of players. Too much self-promotion as "personalities." Forget it. Go watch some tape. Joe Theismann, Paul Maguire and Mike Patrick, ESPN. My friends don't like Joe. Too talky, they say. Well, I like him, and if he talks a lot it's because he's the only one who's trying to analyze what's happening. The other guys see things through fans' eyes, with fans' perceptions ("They've got a 240-pound fullback, why don't they just give him the ball?" etc.), and when Joe embarrasses them, they get even by trying to shoot him down. Plus, Patrick forgets he's supposed to be a play-by-play man, not an analyst. Paul's a funny guy and he'll provide a chuckle, but it's the kind of laugh you get from the guy watching the game next to you in the bar. And all that other crap, the interactive and those silly little contests some genius in a boardroom thought up, puh-leeze! They're trying to reduce it to the level of a 10-year-old. UNRATED I want to be fair about this and I really haven't seen enough games worked by the CBS teams of Beasley Reece and Craig Bolerjack, Charles Mann and Tim Brando, and Steve Tasker and Don Criqui. What I did see left me kind of neutral. Mann is low-key and occasionally informative, Reece has cut down on his ha-ha-ha of past years and is O.K. on pass coverages, and Tasker is a little inexperienced but very dedicated. Criqui would make me happier if he were more serious about spotting the ball.
Got a comment or question for Dr. Z? Click
here.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
